Drug testing in schools

[Actuary321]

On 2002-03-26 15:34, switched wrote:
I hate to say it, but Paddyboy has a point.

Here's the problems with random drug testing of kids:

1) False positives!!!! Poppyseed bagels will make you test positive for heroin. Simply being around people smoking cigarettes or marijuana will make you test positive for nicotine or THC, even if the kid is a good one and doesn't partake. Cough medicine or religious observance or a legal beer from your dad can make you test positive for alcohol. Some people are legally prescibed steroids or anti-depressants or relaxants, even as children.

And even if you somehow managed to take all these factors into account, none of the tests are 100% or 99.99% or even 99.9% accurate!!! If you test millions of kids, you're gonna get a boatload or false positives.

(It might be okay if the only repercussions were notification of the parents.)


2) Which causes more harm to children (as a group en masse), minor recreational drug use or getting in trouble for such?

Some studies have shown the most well-adjusted adults were minor experimenters as children. Those who abstained completely were less happy and less successful.

Shouldn't our drug testing be focused on where the true problems lie: A. athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs, and B. problem students who use drugs excessively, to the detriment of grades and to the point of possibly harming others through DUI.

Let's ask this question: if every 17-year-old in the entire country were tested for pot and alcohol, and every single one of them who tested positive be suspended from school and their parents notified, would most of them be better off or worse off in the future? I'd say worse off, by far.

First, I think that in most instances False Positive means an instance where the test fails to provide the correct information. The test does not indicate if someone uses a substance only if the substance is in their body. A False Positive would be where the test indicated that the substance was in their body but the substance was not actually in their body. None of your examples are examples of False Positive tests.

Second, I don't think an under age person can legally drink a beer given them by their father. The legality question deals with the consumption of the beer not how it was obtained.

Third, I would like to see the studies you refer to about the most well adjusted adults.

Fourth, I would disagree with you that the real problem with drug use is athletes using proformance enhancing drugs. And where is the line between recreational and excessive drug use, and who gets to define that line?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Actuary321 on 2002-03-26 16:05 ]</font>

[Enough Exams Already]

On 2002-03-26 15:46, Traci wrote:
""""And that is why the police must obtain a warrant or court order before testing someone they suspect has been using drugs, because of due process requirements. """

ONCE AGAIN - It is my opinion that random drug screening does NOT fall in this category. It is my opinion that no one is being accused or even suspected. It's just a SCREENING.

So you'd have no problem if the police randomly searched your home..you know, just to screen....not because they thought you were up to anything?

You'd have no problem if a cop pulled you over, searched your car, frisked you...just to see if you had any stolen property, or a weapon...not because you fit a description of a subject, but because there was a chance you might?

You'd be in a lawyer's office yelling about the Fourth Amendment in a New York minute.

ONCE AGAIN - It is my opinion that drug abuse falls more into the category of contagious health problems - One that can be difficult to identify. This is why I do not have a problem with screening - from a "due process" or privacy standpoint.

It's not just a health problem; no other "health problem" carries legal consequences for having it.

You may not care about your civil rights. I happen to care about mine.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Would everyone be OK if the random drug testing NEVER lead to arrests? Meaning that this kind of "screening" was immune to prosecution or expulsion?

It could be made into a simple exchange of health-related information, just like the "Fatty-Fatty" letters.
A simple, "We have determined that your daughter is using marijuana. Please schedule an appointment with one of our counselors."

Anyone have a problem with being notified by a nurse that their kid's on drugs? It would be better than, say, the police from the jail, or the pathologist from the morgue.

T is wrong on this. But keep going, T. It's amusing for some of us.

[Traci]

"""if every 17-year-old in the entire country were tested for pot and alcohol, and every single one of them who tested positive be suspended from school """

For the record - I never advocated automatic suspension for testing postive.

[Paddyboy1]

Children are allowed to consume alcohol and cigarettes, they are not allowed to purchase them and you are not allowed to sell to them or help distribute them if you are a commercial establishment.

You are allowed to feed your kids what you want around the house or hand out cigarettets. As an example, Catholic children starting at 7 take wine at communion once a week.

[JO]

On 2002-03-26 16:22, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
Would everyone be OK if the random drug testing NEVER lead to arrests? Meaning that this kind of "screening" was immune to prosecution or expulsion?

Who would keep the confidentiality? And how would you make sure it would stay confidential?

Imagine potential employers having access to such a database..

[Traci]

"""So you'd have no problem if the police randomly searched your home..you know, just to screen....not because they thought you were up to anything? """

Oops - forgot to turn the page!

No - that's not okay - But again - I see a difference - I think I've already spelled it out.

I started to elaborate - again, but realized I was repeating myself - again.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'd keep it confidential in my perfect world. Like "Doctor-Patient confidential."

[Paddyboy1]

DTNF: No I would still not be OK with it. I think it would be good if parents had access to it (although I don't know if I want the govt paying for it). It would be a nice option for healthcare industry to provide in a health plan, where you could get your kids tested.

I personally don't like the example that it would set for my children, the govt deciding for daddy what he should think.

[Actuary321]

On 2002-03-26 16:26, Paddyboy1 wrote:
Children are allowed to consume alcohol and cigarettes, they are not allowed to purchase them and you are not allowed to sell to them or help distribute them if you are a commercial establishment.

You are allowed to feed your kids what you want around the house or hand out cigarettets. As an example, Catholic children starting at 7 take wine at communion once a week.

Sorry, I live in Utah, where I think it is even against the law for someone under 21 to watch someone else consume alcohol.

But if you are correct then why have I read about people being charged for supplying alcohol to minors at parties? I seem to remember one where a teenage girl died and the state charged the people who supplied the booze.